Learning note

print Print this page

This Note relates to KSF4: Implementation arrangements and institutional aspects
Version: 30/3/06

Core issues

Technical support services, in particular research and extension, need reshaping in many developing countries to respond to changing circumstances and new demands on small farmers, such as:

  • The world’s food industry and global food marketing are changing rapidly, farmers worldwide are increasingly exposed to global competition and new regulatory frameworks are being introduced in developed and developing countries.
  • Pressures are mounting on farmers in many parts of developing countries to find alternative livelihoods and their dependence on agriculture is often decreasing. Services need to go beyond supporting input intensification on staple crops such as those that brought about the Green Revolution. They should also help those remaining dependent on the land, developing and providing advice on  more diversified routes out of rural poverty, to improve coping strategies and better control of risks. More on- and off-farm jobs need to be created in rural areas.
  • The dynamism and diversity of poverty are increasing among IFAD target groups, especially in Africa, reinforcing the need for technical support services to promote more location- or client-specific technology adaptation.
  • Development of this technology is faster and more successful if it draws on local knowledge and builds on partnerships between researchers, extensionists and technology users themselves.
  • Public sector research and extension services have been weakened by government spending cuts and their modus operandi is often outmoded vis-à-vis these new, evolving, needs. Most are unequal to future challenges; but there is seldom capacity and there are few incentives for alternative organisations, in particular for the private sector to take over former public roles. In many developing countries means to secure wider R&D contributions from the private and voluntary sectors are central to restoring effective support services.
  • Support for reforms of technical support services should be integrated with contributions of ongoing or planned R&D support from regional and international programmes e.g. the CGIAR, IFAD and donors. Enclaves in which each donor promotes its own preferred approach should be avoided.
  • Advantage should be taken of reformed, participatory, support services to help target groups lobby and negotiate with local administrations and political authorities, to overcome upstream and downstream technical or non-technical constraints to livelihood change.

Key tasks for design and review

  • To document proposals which respond to the core issues above, users of this LN are referred to the Working Paper Outline in ‘Key Tasks for Design and Review’ of Learning Note 3.1 Technology Change for Livelihood Development. In summary, proposals should be developed which cover: a definition of the intended target group/s and the technical strategy proposed to respond to their constraints and opportunities; a description and analysis of the present state and capacities of technical support services; a summary of relevant lessons for reform; a rationale for reforms that will address the requirements of the target group; and a description of the revised modus operandi and future organisation and management of research and extension.
  • The roles and contributions of technology users themselves, revamped public sector services, NGOs, the private and commercial sectors, producer/processor organisations, and facilitators of farmer participation should be explained, together with the means to be used to attract/involve new participants and any external technical assistance that would be provided for reform.
  • Proposed funding mechanisms and channels should be described – e.g. reliance on direct budgetary support to service providers or beneficiary groups vs. competitive grants vs. payment by users for advice and services; costs should be presented and exit strategies proposed for eventual financial sustainability.
  • Proposals should stress how services will enrol farmers as equal partners and draw on local knowledge to generate and disseminate adaptations tailored to the circumstances of target groups.
  • Design and review teams should also highlight how access to other available sources of technical knowledge will be widened and organised – e.g. to exploit potentially relevant contributions from IFAD grants, the CGIAR, universities, or in innovative fields such as biotechnology – and how activities would be co-ordinated with those of other lenders or donors.
  • Funding and implementing responsibilities should be allocated for socio-economic evaluations of emerging technology needs or potentials, essential to maintain relevance of extension and research programmes to the needs of IFAD target groups.
  • Explore the possibility of community contracting and the transfer of responsibility for direct managing public funds to users and their organisations.
  • The institution-building priorities of the extension and research investments should be clear - whether the main aim is technical (introducing modern technology or accelerating uptake), social (expanding farmer participation or spread of indigenous knowledge), organisational (forging new partnerships between service providers) or job creation.
  • Realistic time-frames should be assumed for project-financed R&D. To generate adoptable, new pro-poor technologies within the disbursement period of one project is rarely achievable; successor projects are more likely to benefit.
  • As for other project components or programme activities, M&E indicators should be proposed and institutional information should be summarised in the SWOT and Stakeholder Key Files.

Valid CSS! Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional